It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

VIDEO:Napolitano Admits She Hasn't Read Arizona Law But Says She Wouldn't Sign It

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Idiot? No. She's the former Arizona governor who USED to be all for tighter border control and regulation on illegal immigration.

But now she works for Washington and they don't have an official position on illegal immigration




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
After all I have said about this law, this and Holder's admission that they never read it further solidifies my position. Since these people were among the first to criticize the law, it just goes to show how unfounded and intellectually dishonest the opposition has been.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
What is the check and balance in place to keep bills that aren't being read from being passed?

This seems like blatant neglect on her part.
As well as a growing trend in Congress. What does the bill state? I don't know....

The bill could say that it was ok to eat babies and none would be the wiser.

This needs to be addressed by our elected civil representatives.
Something NEEDS to be done.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Absolutely unbelievable :shk:

You would think that this law is exactly the kind of thing that the secretary of homeland security would read. But then again that would require her to have some degree of common sense.

This country is being run by a bunch of bufoons, no wonder other countries laugh at us.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


This is what she said..
"That's not the kind of law I would have signed," she declared. "I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in," Napolitano said. "

So she "believes" it's not a law she would sign without reading it!!!
She DID NOT say say would't sign a law she hasn't read and thats obvious by the Healthcare bill.
So you're wrong either way..



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by endtimer
 


With some of these pollys its hard to tell...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


This is what she said..
"That's not the kind of law I would have signed," she declared. "I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in," Napolitano said. "


Yup, she said what she believes. I am not sure what your issue with that is? Many people here defending the bill have not read it, yet they love voicing what they believe about it.


So she "believes" it's not a law she would sign without reading it!!!


Shouldn't every good politician be against signing a bill they have not read? We have more than enough laws already. I thought you guys were for smaller government? You want politicians to be eager to sign bills before they read them?

I can hardly imagine a better position to take on any new bill. Be against supporting any bill you have not read.

Now, can you show me where she said she would refuse to read it if it were up to her to sign or not sign?


She DID NOT say say would't sign a law she hasn't read and thats obvious by the Healthcare bill.
So you're wrong either way..


Not sure you proved that she signed the health care bill without reading it what I am wrong either way about but hey, you go with that.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Sorry I missed a coma..Maybe me trying to keep my posts shot and to the point, unlike some.

So she "believes" it's not a law she would sign, without reading it!!!

Now answer.......



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You misunderstand the problem I think. It isn't necessarily that her opinion is opposed. It's that its unfounded.

It;s that her opinion is not based on the information she is privy to; The bill she is speaking out against.

An analogy would be that she is stating that she hates ice cream, when she has never tried ice cream before. How can you have an opinion that is your own while not having learned about the subject information to form a genuine opinion?

Further more it is her JOB as Secretary of HomeLand Security to be informed on matters that effect HomeLand Security. This is simply her admitting to not doing her job.

If you worked at a restaurant and were told to memorize the menu, and came to work without that information, you would be fired, because you were not completing the duties of your job.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Uh - don't higher level office holders have aides that read bills/documents etc - - then provide an synopsis?

There is a lot of paperwork involved in politics. I seriously doubt top level office holders read full anything. That's what aides and advisers are for.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


True but they earn a 6 or 7 figure salary and should know what they are talking about.
Also their aid is probably their nephew...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Obviously the Obama administration doesn't believe in reading before coming to an opinion. *sigh*

Here's another government official doing the same on live TV and getting embarassed: www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join